Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Enchanted Trinkets Complete--a hardcover book containing over 500 magic items for your D&D games!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="irdeggman" data-source="post: 4132627" data-attributes="member: 16285">No - I actually see what you are saying here but disagree with it being a real "problem". I instead see it as a ramification of the "leader's" actions.  A "leader" who uses his cohort as an xp sink for making magic items, IMO, doesn't deserve to be a "leader". A leader who doesn't feel the pain of having his cohort die, likewise doesn't deserve to be aleader.I did try to provide some "justification" to use in this - pertaining to things like penalties to leadership score based on "death of a cohort" - but they were pretty much dismissed outright.If all people are doing is trying to use the leadership feat as a means of "powering up" in order to gain another PC - then the entire concept of the feat is missing.That is why the DMG has a warning to the DM about using the feat in a game in the first place.If what is needed is a means to introduce more NPCs into a party - then take a different rout. Either DM run NPCs (i.e. friendlies) - run just like PCs or have players run additional PCs.IMO either option is shaky at best. I have always found that when players run more than 1 PC their role-playing opportunities suffer greatly and if the adventure "requires" more party memebers than there are presently then the DM needs to some more homework in adjusting the CR of the encounters in the first place.Leadership is a very significant feat (and issue) to introduce into a game. Not all games have a place for such a concept and that should be weighed in before allowing it in. It is an optional feat for a reason.</blockquote>

Verification